Questions I Ponder as a Reformed Christian

Questions I Ponder as a Reformed Christian

Questions I often ponder these days as a confessional Reformed Christian living in a time of real ecclesial change in the West:

1. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians seem to have historical amnesia when it comes to events that transpired in church history from the death of John on the Isle of Patmos, late in the first century, until the completion of the Canon several centuries later?

2. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore the Church Fathers as well as the catholic creeds of the Christian church?

3. Why do modern conservative Reformed Christians ignore the fact that John Calvin was especially influenced by the Church Fathers? For that matter why do these same conservative Reformed Christians virtually ignore other Reformed writers who relied very heavily upon the classical catholic tradition such as Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley?

4. Why do conservative Reformed Christians treat only certain confessional traditions, such as the Westminster Confession or its cousin the London Baptist Confession, as if only these confessions and catechisms were the proper confessional grounds for the Reformed faith and thus for contemporary understanding of the Bible and classical Christian thought, if they even care about classical thought? These important creedal standards of the 17th century are not the only standards for orthodoxy, for all time and all cultures, and few have ever treated them in this manner. Therefore, why do ordinary Christians hardly ever hear this from the many of the conservative Reformed spokesmen? (There are few if any conservative Reformed spokeswomen, which is another question for another time.)

5. Why do conservative Reformed Christians demand a kind of purity from other modern Reformed writers that allows so many of them to never actually engage the culture and do the hard work of the Kingdom in the 21st century? Why do they attack all expressions of emerging culture and church life when in fact their tradition emerged in a specific time in history too?

6. Why do conservative Reformed Christians identify so strongly, and often so stridently, with other non-Reformed Christians in certain area of gospel controversy, especially in advocating very narrow definitions of the gospel in an attempt to impress lay people and inadequately taught pastors that they alone are standing for the truth in this dark day? This has been done over the last ten years with the issuance of various joint statements and widely promoted conferences, as if these faithful spokesmen alone have the courage to defend the gospel and the correct understanding of what actually constitutes the gospel.

7. Why do conservative Reformed Christians generally treat Roman Catholics (and Orthodox Christians if they bother to respond to them at all) as non-Christians, especially in their public pronouncements? Do these same Reformed Christians, at least on the Presbyterian side of the aisle, ever admit that their own traditions have always accepted Catholic/Orthodox baptism as valid Christian baptism? I also wonder if these conservatives, who stand should-to-shoulder with other non-Reformed fundamentalists in a type of reductionism that results from their narrow gospel definitions (as noted as in question six above), really ever make these facts plain to their non-Reformed (Baptist and dispensational) allies, who I suppose would be aghast if they understood this?

8. Why do conservative Reformed Christians rail so harshly, and react so emotionally, against liturgy in worship (a huge list could be constructed to make this point) on the one hand, while on the other they hate pop-cultural, happy-clappy, contemporary evangelical worship services with a passion? Do they realize that what they have created, in many cases, is a modern lecture hall with hymns and a collection? Do they realize that this is much more like a Plymouth Brethren gathering than a truly Reformed service, with all its variations and rich use of older liturgical tradition?

9. Why do conservative Reformed Christians often promote a high ecclesiology (in theory) while in practice they act much more like Southern Baptists who add presbyteries and general assemblies on to a modern form of culture religion? In practice these sorts of Reformed groups govern themselves, and do theology, less and less like historically Reformed bodies. Think populism and democractic idealism, not historic Reformed confessionalism, and you get my point.

10. Why do conservative Reformed Christians promote certain aspects of Puritanism, often without really understanding Puritanism in the way a real scholar like J. I. Packer does, while at the same time they despise the real Puritan approach to the Holy Spirit and to a practical experiential religion centered in the heart? And why do these same people hate almost every type of ascetical or mystical theology while whole segments of the Reformed movement have loved these parts of the Christian tradition deeply? (This is precisely why some conservative Reformed spokesmen despise Jonathan Edwards, which I discovered first-hand, to my profound surprise, about ten years ago.)

Separatism and fundamentalism are both alive and well among many conservative Reformed Christians in our day. I wish more people understood the simple truth of this obvious fact. I also wish more spokesmen would own up to this truth and allow an honest discussion in their circles of influence. (I am not holding my breath!) To open up such circles to an honest discussion would require an open denial of the narrow use of their creedal tradition. Bible-belt American culture has much more to do with these questions than historical creeds and confessions, as do pride of person and place. In a very real sense even the appellation TR (Truly Reformed, or Totally Reformed) is quite inaccurate, though I fear it is too often worn as a badge of honor by many. Isn’t it time to address these questions honestly so that a new generation can hear the real beauty of how Reformed theology can actually make a solid contribution to restoring classical Christian faith and holy tradition to a culture-bound church that is knee deep in compromise and confusion? I see a growing number of younger Christians who find this whole "Reformed" view completely irrelevant the more they read widely and encounter real people in real churches. One can pray that their tribe will increase as people realize that we must live in the 21st century, not the 17th.

Questions I ponder asa Reformed Christian. I often ponder the same questions. The following two especially resonate with me:
8. Why do conservative Reformed Christians rail so harshly, and react so emotionally, against liturgy in wors…

Dave Moorhead
June 2, 2006 at 10:56 am

John,
First, as soon as I can get up from my desk (I am presently weighed down by guilt) I will go to my collection of Church Fathers and read something.
Second, I recently attended a TR conference in which I was vilified (not by name because they don’t even know me) because I pastor an “emergent church”. They pointed out how I want to avoid doctrine and theology and that I reject absolute truth. I know, I was confused too.
Third, one session at the TR conference was about recovering the true New Testament church. I found it fascinating that their definition of New Testament preaching and worship was Puritan! Apparently they not only left out the first 300 years of the church but the first 1600 years!
Thanks for wondering!!!

I am not Reformed (at least, I don’t qualify according to the guardians of the label); thus, I am on the outside looking in. For some, I realize, that immediately casts suspicion upon me and disqualifies any observations I might have since I am “not one of them.”
What I have read of the more vocal Reformed fundamentalists, however, leads me to believe that their theology is determined by their psychology. They need to believe what they do because of their basic personality structure: not to have answers is unthinkable; living with questions, impossible.
They won’t change unless/until God so rocks their theological world that they have no other choice. I pray for such an intervention, but I also understand that many (if not most) of these “TRs” are incapable of handling such a shattering of their schemas. God, in His grace and wisdom, is probably going to let them continue in their misguided, vitriolic zeal rather than to psychologically destroy them. A psyche can be a fragile thing, especially in the hands of God.
At the same time, I also am thankful for the healthier Reformed individuals such as yourself, Challies, Jollyblogger, and others. This was an excellent post and one which, I fear, will either be attacked or ignored by those who need to consider it most.

Wow – good one John. As Assoc. Pastor of a Non-denominational Reformed church that would be labeled (or vilified) as “emergent” by some, I still believe that Reformed Pastors can reach out and reach people without compromising the gospel or having to play that old “Whose Brain is Bigger?” game.

Passer-by
June 2, 2006 at 5:04 pm

From another perspective, the national Christian homeschool community is widely influenced by much of the narrow, TR thinking that you address. As a non-reformed author and speaker, I would risk losing parts of our audience if I publicly criticized the excesses and wrongheaded thinking of some of the more vocal proponents of the Patriarchal and Reformed crowd. I find it frightening what these mostly fundamentalist TRs are doing to families and children with their extrabiblical legalisms and narrow gender and family role definitions. The only grace I see in their lifestyles is a cold doctrine; I never hear about freedom in Christ and walking by the Spirit. It’s either their way, or the wrong way. There is no unity of the Spirit with those outside their narrow, systematic borders.
Sorry for the rant, but your excellent post just stirred my juices. Thank you for giving voice, as a Reformed pastor, to the questions that never seem to be asked. I know nothing about you except that you are a courageous thinker. I wish I had your courage to be so bold. Keep it up. (Found a link to your post on Boar’s Head Tavern.)

Rob
June 2, 2006 at 6:35 pm

I have a strange reaction to this. I think you’re unfair with many of the early numbered points (things having to do with the church fathers, and also the point about the confessions; I don’t see an ignoring of the church fathers among Reformed types, and regarding your point(s) about the WCF, etc., I think Reformed types would answer that we are concerned with pure biblical doctrine and not cultural context and what not, and the WCF is rather accurate regarding biblical doctrine), but then you’re dead on accurate regarding for instance point 10. In a big way.
But, there ARE Reformed types who understand what you state in point 10, and you know what? I’m as vilified and mocked for it by non-Reformed Christians (many of whom are your fans) as I am by the TRs…

Rob,
We must be living in two entirely different worlds, because I’ve been Reformed for about 5 years now, and the only post-apostolic, pre-reformation Christian I’ve ever heard spoken of in Reformed circles is Augustine. (and even he was referred to only sparingly!) And, oh yeah I forgot, Sproul does make a big deal sometimes about Aquinas being a pre-Calvin Calvinist. 😉
Truth is, it wasn’t until I began studying Church history for myself that I began to be exposed to the Fathers in any meaningful way. And when I would relay what I read from them to my Reformed friends, they would get rather uneasy… still do in fact.
Maybe your experience has been different. But from what I’ve seen and heard, I would have to conlude that your experience (if it has indeed been different) is the exception to the rule.
Blessings,
Jon

Rob
June 3, 2006 at 10:15 am

In terms of Reformed influences I, like many (most?) Reformed Christians read Calvin and Turretin and so on, so to say Reformed types are allergic to the church fathers seems off to me. Also, in terms of contempory experience, internet forums let’s say, I’d have to say several of the main Reformed sites I’ve been most involved in have been active in dealing with writings of the church fathers, etc.
The thing is, though, the church fathers (I’ll use that historical term) don’t make me “queasy”, it’s just a matter of discerning on-the-mark biblical doctrine. The Bible is the standard for me. I can read ANYTHING and potentially get something from ANYTHING, yet the Bible is my standard all along. I don’t expect non-biblical sources (church fathers or any other) to be anything but mixtures of wheat and chaff that require discernment to get the wheat, if any, from.

Rob,
I’m not sure if I quite get the point of this comment:
“In terms of Reformed influences I, like many (most?) Reformed Christians read Calvin and Turretin and so on, so to say Reformed types are allergic to the church fathers seems off to me.”
I’m assuming you’re not putting Calvin and Turretin in the category of “church fathers.” If so, then the only thing you can mean is that reading Calvin and Turretin gives you enough quoting of the fathers to understand them and their own historical context. I do not think this is true. Calvin and Turretin cite the fathers to support their own views, not to present the fathers in their own light and let them speak for themselves (though I think some of what they say can be used in support of Reformed thought). Saying that reading Calvin and Turretin can give me a good understanding of the fathers is akin to saying that reading the “Institutes” is all I need to understand the thought of the apostle Paul. Paul is quoted more than the fathers in that work, but I don’t think anyone would be willing to make the assumption that a reading of Calvin is all one needs to understand him. No, to understand Paul you need to read Paul extensively. And the case is no less true with the fathers. This is not to say that the fathers are in any sense equal to Paul, but it is to say that they should not be subordinated to the likes of Calvin and Turretin.
As far as “on-the-mark” biblical doctrine is concerned, I think we need to ask ourselves the question: who determines what is “on-the-mark.” The fathers were just as convinced as Calvin, Edwards, or Hodge were that they were on-the-mark. Why should we presume that those who came along over a millennium after the apostolic age had a better grasp of apostolic teaching than the immediate successors of the Apostles? This is not to discount the teaching of the former, but only to challenge the line of thinking which presumes that when the fathers conflict with Calvin or whoever else their doctrine must be discounted as “off-the-mark” simply because they were not Reformed or did not use the same categories as the Reformed do.

It’s been my experience that far too many Reformed people don’t even read many primary sources, let alone the Fathers.
They read Augustine through the eyes of Calvin, but really read Calvin through the eyes of the Puritans.
Those Reformed folks who taste of the Fathers often never go back because of the lack of conformity to “Reformed orthodoxy” (e.g., WCF, 1689, etc.).
But, hey, I’m a Baptist, so I’m not even allowed to use the label “Reformed” according to some. So what do I know?
; )

Todd Upchurch
June 5, 2006 at 2:41 pm

John,
As someone who has met you and sat in on some of your plenary sessions at Beeson’s Pastor’s School I must say that I am surprised at your about-face on some issues.
Mainly, I am surprised that you would consider Catholics as Christian. On what grounds do you base their salvation? Considering that the Catholic system is riddled with extreme cultic swayings, I am wondering what your plum line is.
Disappointed,
Todd Upchurch

Rob
June 5, 2006 at 4:44 pm

[This is responding to Augustinian]
First of all, in all honesty, I don’t even use the term ‘church fathers.’ I think it is empty and misleading to label early theologians ‘fathers.’ Not to mention unbiblical. And their theology often deserves the name, to quote a contempory Christian author, ‘church babies’ more than fathers.
Obviously you don’t see the truth and the power in Reformed, Calvinist doctrine, which is merely apostolic biblical doctrine. So be it. When you do see it such questions as “so who gets to decide what is on-the-mark?” can only be met with an understanding grin. Without the Spirit of Truth in you you can’t discern the truth. With it you can. Make the Bible your standard and go from there…

Ray
June 5, 2006 at 5:17 pm

It sounds like you need to take your greek nt, take a sabatical, and prayerfully rexamine these issues. I detect some serious issues of authority and historical continuity that you had best deal with.
I speak out of concern, and not to score points, much less condemn you. The last reformed pastor I knew was Scott Hahn, and he is now in the Catholic Church.
You have always demonstrated integrity in your writings. If your crisis of confidence in the authority and sufficency of the Bible remains unresolved you need to consider whether or not you can honestly continue in your present office.

Ray
June 5, 2006 at 5:19 pm

It sounds like you need to take your greek nt, take a sabatical, and prayerfully rexamine these issues. I detect some serious issues of authority and historical continuity that you had best deal with.
I speak out of concern, and not to score points, much less condemn you. The last reformed pastor I knew who raised these issues, was Scott Hahn, and he is now in the Catholic Church.
You have always demonstrated integrity in your writings. If your crisis of confidence in the authority and sufficency of the Bible remains unresolved you need to consider whether or not you can honestly continue in your present office.

Rob said:
“First of all, in all honesty, I don’t even use the term ‘church fathers.’ I think it is empty and misleading to label early theologians ‘fathers.’ Not to mention unbiblical. And their theology often deserves the name, to quote a contempory Christian author, ‘church babies’ more than fathers.”
Thank you for proving the first three points of this post. The arrogance of such a statement is somewhat disconcerting to me.
Rob also said:
“Obviously you don’t see the truth and the power in Reformed, Calvinist doctrine, which is merely apostolic biblical doctrine. So be it.”
Says who? I’m sorry, but why is there an assumption that I am not a Calvinist? I just don’t use my Calvinism as a weapon to beat others over the head with, and I would much rather subordinate my particular views on predestination and so forth to those more essentially Christian doctrines which the Church universal has always held. Does this make me a nonm-Calvinist? If so, then I’m afraid someone has changed the meaning of the term “Calvinism.”
Rob also said,
“Without the Spirit of Truth in you you can’t discern the truth. With it you can. Make the Bible your standard and go from there…”
Interesting. The very same Bible that was collected and preserved by the “church babies.” Why would you trust writings collected and preserved by such fumbling bumbling dim-wits?

Thank you, John. A lot of this type of questions have been bothering me for some time now. I consider myself Eastern Orthodox but I believe in Christian unity through Christ’s Love, and the questions that you have posted here are very relevant to today’s church culture if the unity at least among the Protestant denominations is at stake. Thank you.

I consider myself Reformed and have been in such circles for 12 years now.
My sympathetic yet critical thoughts:
1. A history of being anti-Catholic has made it too easy to be anti-catholic. (Note the capitalization.) But note that many in non-Reformed circles are even less catholic, with no connection to the regional or historical church — I’m speaking of non-denominational megachurchism here. I’m grateful that within the Reformed tradition there is an interest in church history, for example, even if only the past 500 years — it’s a start!
2. Reformed Christians are intellectual, placing primacy on the intellect within sanctification and worship (a topic worth its own post!). Because they value the intellect so highly, they value being “right” (as an early comment from an observer rightly observed). Thus, there is a tendency to dogmatize. Since few people are truly scholars by nature or vocation, these dogmatic Christians usually aren’t really as well versed in their areas of opinion as they think they are. And, when you know this deep down inside, you are naturally defensive about that which might challenge your thinking — say, examining the thought of the early church fathers.
3. Along with this, conservative Reformed Christians have learned just enough about “worldview” to make them convinced that theirs is unshakable. Yet I also think that a solid understanding of the Christian worldview (meaning how the tenets of Christianity combine to form a whole system of thought about the world) is overall a helpful thing.
So in summary, I think that what it comes down to is, sadly, pseudo-intellectualism. A tradition whose heroes are true intellectuals and scholars (Calvin, Machen, whomever) tends to create this, unfortunately.
In closing, I’d like to say that I think the Puritans are indeed a good role model for Reformed believers like myself. As J.I. Packer says, they exhibit “intellect on fire” — i.e., a combination of deep thought with true spirituality. It seems that their suffering and setbacks played an important role here.
Thanks for asking the questions!

I’d like to add something else, anecdotally.
Reformed churches tend to fall into two camps:
1. Those that grow because they are part of their local community and speak to it — these tend to contain many people who don’t know a lick about being “Reformed” but want to be part of a solid church. These are churches that love the Lord and happen to be Reformed.
2. And those that grow because they are “REFORMED” — these attract the more divisive folks you describe. These tend to be less connected to the local community, having grown due to their reputation for being “right” rather than for their reputation for being Christians.
Non-Reformed readers of this thread should realize that there are plenty of Reformed churches that are not much different than any other Christ-honoring local church in many respects. Learning to be Christians first and Reformed second, while not losing the positive aspects of Reformed distinctives, is the challenge. Fear of the latter probably keeps some churches entrenched and on the defensive.
Ken

Jeff
June 10, 2006 at 12:32 am

I agree. The biggest mistake the Presbyterians ever made was to “throw out” the prayer book. The Westminster Directory of Public Worship IS a prayer book! Thus, Presbyterian liturgy is unstable and ungrounded in historic practice, not because they didn’t have good ideas, but because they should have placed their revised ideas into a Presbyterian prayer book.

paul
June 15, 2006 at 12:05 pm

Thoroughly enjoyed your questions: they are the same sort of questions that led liberal Methodist Tom Oden out of liberalism into what he calls “paleo-orthodoxy” (see his “Agenda for Theology” for a marvelous account of this theological conversion to a truly evangelical and catholic “consensual” theology). I discovered him at as a student at a reformed seminary! His work in systematics is marvelous, searching the continuing thread of orthodoxy through the Fathers to the Reformers, and on to the best of Wesley, Edwards, Kierkegaard, and the likes. A similar spirit of approach can be found in the work of Lutheran theologian Robert Jansen, and the journal (of which he is one of the editors), “Pro Ecclesia: a journal of catholic and evangelical theology”. Presently I’m a missionary in Africa, but also an ardent student of those who were truly and deeply augustinian but who had also a deep respect for those other churchly values that you underscore. I spead of: Blaise Pascal and the Jansenists of 17th century France. Consensual, deeply catholic, and deeply evangelical Christianity with strong patristic and spiritual resourcing has all existed together at one time! In a monastery in France (Port Royal)that was finally crushed in spirit, and in its very walls, by the king of France and by the bulls of the pope. But, refusing to take the road of separatism, they stayed in the “synagogue” as their Master did and they died and suffered all in the name of the suffering Savior as devout, ardently loving, Bible-centered, evangelical, augustinian, universal christians.Perhaps they have something to say to us weary sectarian Americans today.

a gaggle of sweeping generalizations in many of these comments.
Speaking of psychology, the word projection comes to mind. There seems to be a lot of projecting the problems experienced with some individuals on a movement (and a varied on at that) as a whole.

A while back I posted a link to John Armstrong’s recent attack on the very beliefs that he once held. Pastor Ron Gleason has now posted a thorough response, saying: “It is time to take off the gloves with Armstrong….

David Jones
September 3, 2006 at 10:16 am

Wow. And all I ever wondered about was why in the world reformers would use grape juice in communion.
These are great questions. You have me thinking.

John Armstrong asks some exceptional questions about the state of all things Reformed. So much so, we quote in full:
Questions I often ponder these days as a confessional Reformed Christian living in a time of real ecclesial change in the West:
1. Why…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Posts

Receive every new post as an email in your inbox.Leave Blank:Do Not Change: